If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How does anyone think that a PG who has shot around 40% for his career and 30% on 3s for his career with a TO to Ast ratio of no better than average is going to lead a team anywhere. He is someone that will win you games every once in a while with his streaky shooting. Then he'll lose you just as many games when he isn't hot. He would need to show some major improvements or ability to be molded (for a good contract never overpaid) for me to have any interest. Not the kind of guy who wants to take the back seat (which he will have to) to Anthony Davis and Gordon (if he's ever healthy). I like the idea of a PG whose got handles and can pass the ball well and penetrate, maybe even spot up. We don't need a guy putting up 25 shots a game and shooting 40% while doing it.

I think this is a great question. I'm generally in favor of the "slow rebuild" that is focused on getting another good player in the draft, and then adding an impact free agent after next season. It's certainly also important to get a good feel for the strengths and weakness of the current team over time. They've been great so far, but let's see how things look in February. As a fan, I'm so optimistic for the future that I have no problem being patient for another year. Plus it seems wiser to "wait and see" what we really have in our current roster. Will Rivers improve significantly over the season? Will Gordon be healthy? How good is Aminu? What is Ryan Anderson's role on the team? Etc. We won't know what and how to add onto the team until the answers to these questions become clearer.

However, what if the Brandon Jennings of the first week of the season is the "real" Brandon Jennings? What if he has become one of the top ten (or top five) point guards in the league? If he is that good, and if we feel his talents will complement the current roster, then you have to consider the deal. But I sure would hate to have to take on that Gooden contract.

How does anyone think that a PG who has shot around 40% for his career and 30% on 3s for his career with a TO to Ast ratio of no better than average is going to lead a team anywhere. He is someone that will win you games every once in a while with his streaky shooting. Then he'll lose you just as many games when he isn't hot. He would need to show some major improvements or ability to be molded (for a good contract never overpaid) for me to have any interest. Not the kind of guy who wants to take the back seat (which he will have to) to Anthony Davis and Gordon (if he's ever healthy). I like the idea of a PG whose got handles and can pass the ball well and penetrate, maybe even spot up. We don't need a guy putting up 25 shots a game and shooting 40% while doing it.

Look up his first three years in the league vs. Tony Parker's. Across the board, if you average out the three seasons, their numbers are very similar. Both came into the league at 19. And Tony Parker had studs to play with from day one. This is why I dont consider Jennings a finished player yet- I have never seen him play with another guy who can make him better. A guy who can finish at the rim like Davis or a big who can hit the three like Ryno. Guys who will create space on the floor for him. I have seen him play in Milwaukee with guys who other defense don't respect and have watched him have to do more than he should have to. Put him on a team where he is the third or fourth option and all of a sudden the game becomes a lot simpler for him and those percentages go up.

Look up his first three years in the league vs. Tony Parker's. Across the board, if you average out the three seasons, their numbers are very similar. Both came into the league at 19. And Tony Parker had studs to play with from day one. This is why I dont consider Jennings a finished player yet- I have never seen him play with another guy who can make him better. A guy who can finish at the rim like Davis or a big who can hit the three like Ryno. Guys who will create space on the floor for him. I have seen him play in Milwaukee with guys who other defense don't respect and have watched him have to do more than he should have to. Put him on a team where he is the third or fourth option and all of a sudden the game becomes a lot simpler for him and those percentages go up.

Agreed, and Jennings has improved every year. Last year, I didn't want him on this team, but this year, I'm good with it. I think our team would intrigue him, and he would be a lockdown defender for Monty - dude is one of the quickest players in the league. I don't think he'd be as much of a chucker here - especially when Monty puts him in a "box."

By the way, he is 34.4% from 3 for his career, so I don't know what this Schmide guy is talking about.

That trio would be great but I think he's saying Gordon might not be able to stay healthy, and we might need that Gooden/Jennings money to get another go-to guy

You can't build a team predicting that your best player will get injured. We have Rivers, who will be a big time player for us, and he can play both SG and PG. Miller can also play SG, and Mason can play Sg.

I'm saying that a healthy core of Jennings, Gordon, Rivers, Davis, and Anderson is elite.

I agree. I would do it for Gordon is healthy and reliable. If not, then I wouldn't make the move because we would still be in rebuilding mode since Davis/Jennings/Anderson wouldn't be enough in my opinion as a core.

I don't know guy's.
I'm a bit indifferent about this.
If Gordon stays and keeps healthy I think Jennings would be a great fit.
However if Gordon is traded......I dont see the point in rushing things when we wont win a championship with Jennings anyway.

I'd go after him in FA or maybe trade Vasquez, Henry and Warrick or give up our first pick.

But I dont see the Bucks letting him walk.....they have enough money to offer him the max.

I don't know guy's.
I'm a bit indifferent about this.
If Gordon stays and keeps healthy I think Jennings would be a great fit.
However if Gordon is traded......I dont see the point in rushing things when we wont win a championship with Jennings anyway.

I'd go after him in FA or maybe trade Vasquez, Henry and Warrick or give up our first pick.

But I dont see the Bucks letting him walk.....they have enough money to offer him the max.

I agree. I would do it for Gordon is healthy and reliable. If not, then I wouldn't make the move because we would still be in rebuilding mode since Davis/Jennings/Anderson wouldn't be enough in my opinion as a core.

See to me that's a curious argument, that you would do it if Gordon is healthy, but not if he isn't. Jennings with or without Gordon doesn't throw off our rebuilding efforts since all of our core players are under 25. He's not 29,30-33, he's 23 years old and he would be worthy of what ever Dell Demps offered him.

As a young talented and explosive PG, he would fit right into our rebuilding effort, actually he would advance it, because you're adding a young guy that hasn't hit his prime yet, some one who can still help you now and help take some of the pressure off of the inexperienced guys.

Also he insures that PG won't be your undoing as you go up against the better teams, because talent for talent our front line is going to play with anybody, being experienced and crafty won't really be that much of advantage against Aminu,Davis,Lopez,Anderson and Smith.

But that will Kill us at the guard position, and with what we have on the frontline, i'll take Brandon Jennings all day against Paul, Parker, Nash, Williams, Westbrook, Rondo and all of the young, up and coming PGs and not lose sleep, because he'll give as good as he gets and those battles. You can't say the same for Vasquez, he'll be the reason, as a start we lose the battles or get taken advantage of.

Bucks GM all but admits in that article that you need top 5 picks in order to get good in the NBA. If Milwaukee is a middle of the pack team in January, I could see them pulling a Golden State from last year and trying to bottom out in order to get more ping pong balls.

But I don't see any way they take Vasquez after reading that article. A trade for Jennings would require Rivers, and as much as I like his potential I would do it. Meanwhile, Milwaukee goes young with Rivers, Henson, Udoh, etc. and is horrible for 2-3 years while they pile up the top 5 picks their GM so desperately craves